On 27/01/2020 02:19, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> R.Wieser  wrote:
>> mm0fmf,
>>
>>> You have no idea whether the correct amount of data is being played.
>>
>> Actually, I do.  And it doesn't.  Thats something I'm rather sure of.
>>
>>> All you have is the time it takes for the code to execute.
>>
>> Which is shorter that the calculated one.  Are you denying that ?   If so,
>> on what grounds ?
>>
>> Also, either in this thread or the previous one about the same subject I've
>> mentioned that I can actually make the sound come out as long as the
>> calculation shows it should.   So yes, I'm "pretty sure" (understatement)
>> that what that linked-to code emits in regard to sound is shorter than what
>> it should be.
>>
>>> I know, having seen how you get an idea (Python for example), right or
>>> wrong, then run with it despite what other people tell you
>>
>> :-)   How many of those people have actually tried to run the code ?   Apart
>> from Jim, NONE.  And alas, he did that on a PC, not an RPi.   Different OS,
>> different hardware.  Not comparable.
>>
>>> or the facts are telling you, you don't stop and consider if you are down
>>> a blind alley.
>>
>> :-)  I've done a number of different tests (with measuring time being one of
>> them) all showing that the sound indeed gets cut off.
>>
>>> So why do think the sound playback time is the same as the program
>>> execution time?
>>
>> Why do you think I think that ?  Is that the /only/ possibility that would
>> make my "too short" claim valid ?    Are you sure ?
>>
>> And no, a few different tests I did (one of which I posted) have already
>> shown that the /other/ possibility doesn't exist.    Yes, I have also
>> thought of that.
>>
>>> What could possibly be happening outside your code such that the program
>>> executes in less time than you expect but leads to the correct amount of
>>> data being played?
>>
>> What makes you think that "the correct ammount of data" is actually being
>> played ?    What do you base that on ?   Whisfull thinking perhaps ?   :-(
>>
>> Also, although I've not mentioned it, I did a test (on two different
>> examples) where I kept all buffers Zero, but for (the last part of) the last
>> one (upto half a seconds worth of it).  Guess what I didn't hear.
>>
>>
>> I *really* wish you would be able to run that example code for yourself and
>> duplicate my tests and see for yourself.  Now you are just contradicting me
>> for the heck of it.    Sigh ...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think he’s suggesting that the code terminated prior to the end of the
> playback, because the sound is being played by interrupt-driven code
> outside your program.
>
> That’s why the actual playback duration could be longer than the execution
> time of your code.
>

You can always tell Rudy but you can't tell him  much.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05